Wes Tender

It will almost certainly be June, or the immigration crisis at Calais during the warmer Summer months will reach a crescendo, and appearing on the news nightly, will add percentage points to the leave brigade. That will almost certainly happen within the next few days even, when this situation erupts into inevitable violence:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35618389

What will the vote in March be about?

Something needs to be desperately wrong with an institution like the EU for it to unite such diverse extremes of the political spectrum in opposition to it.

Are you looking forward to being back at school next week?

Like you, my main objection to the EU is based on those things you detest, the meddling in our affairs, the undermining of the authority of our courts and the loss of Sovereignty, but also the loss of control over our borders. Where I disagree with you is over the renegotiation of our trading relationship with the EU should we vote to leave it. Once again, you prove that the situation of Norway and Switzerland is something mentioned by the stay in brigade, rather than the leave fraternity. As the fifth biggest economy, we are quite different to them and carry much more clout. It is fair to say that the EU needs trade with us more than we need trade with them, so although they would undoubtedly be miffed at us for leaving, they would have to recognise that we did not leave because we wished to cease trading with them, but that we left because of all of those things you mentioned that have caused enmity with you and I and a substantial proportion of the British public. These talks between Cameron and the EU have not been about trade. They have been about benefits, the increasing federalisation of the EU, border controls, etc. These were things that were agreed by successive UK governments who signed treaties like Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, which brought about the changes to the original trading foundations of the Common Market and turned us into a member of something quite different without consultation of the electorate by way of a referendum. Cameron has returned from his meetings with the heads of the other EU states claiming to have achieved substantial reforms. Everybody knows that to be a fudge, that he has only achieved minor concessions and there is doubt that even those will be delivered. The British public are not stupid and will vote to leave the EU in June and then the negotiations for the basis of trade agreements will commence. But whereas there could be some free movement of workers between the us and EU states, we would not be obliged to pay benefits to them and could set our own restraints on the numbers and origins of where they came from. Should the EU attempt to impose tariffs on us, that would be counter-productive, as we would retaliate to nobody's benefit. It would also persuade us to seek out trade elsewhere with more favourable terms, again to Europe's disadvantage. It is we who have the best hand of cards and it is a pity that Cameron wasn't able to act in a more bullish manner. He hinted to us that if he didn't get satisfaction over our demands that he could consider joining the leave camp, but he doesn't seem to have told the EU that. I don't think for one minute that he is strong enough or principled enough to be a convincing negotiator able to carry through such a threat which would make them sit up and take him seriously enough. He is like Chamberlain returning clutching his piece of paper.

If Cameron doesn't get a deal on the reforms we require this weekend, then he ought to concentrate minds in the EU by declaring that he would then place himself firmly in the Brexit camp. Unfortunately, I don't believe he has the balls to do that because he isn't that principled and could not countenance the loss of face he would suffer. But there is a good chance that Boris Johnson will join the Brexit group and gain much personal kudos in the process.

I agree totally. There is a solution that would stop this fiasco in its tracks and I wonder why there has not been a campaign to introduce it. It is simply that the country of origin of the benefits or health care claimants, reimburses the country providing those benefits of health care provisions. So if Poland (or any of the other countries who are up in arms at the audacity of us trying to get these payments or services restricted) had to refund the monies or costs of the services provided, then they would quickly find ways of being more amenable to measures restricting the numbers of their economic migrants.

I'm often in the Fareham and Gosport areas on business too. Whereas they are both Navy towns, so that their natural allegiance stems from that connection, the number of Skate shirts that I see has decreased quite a bit. When they were in the Premier League and we were in the third division, there were Skate shirts visible in Hedge End Sainsburys and the Windover Tesco and even the odd few at Asda Chandlers Ford. Those have all disappeared. But the club shirts are just worn by particular types of individual anyway and the numbers are just a small indication of support. I suspect that other than shirt numbers, there has been a big decrease of support from plastic fans for them and a large increase of our plastic support in their areas. The scope for derision from wearing the shirt of a fourth division club outside of your own city is great, so it takes a pretty solid or thick-skinned fan to risk it; thick being the operative word when it comes to their lot.

I would be interested in your explanation as to why free trade agreements would have to be inextricably linked to free movement of people. Do we have to accept free movement of the peoples of those countries outside the EU with whom we have trade agreements? When Iceland signed its trade agreement with China, was that on the basis that unlimited numbers of Chinese could go and live in Iceland as a result? Do they? As far as I can see, it is the people who wish us to remain in the EU who cite the examples of Norway and Switzerland and how they are hampered by these rules on free movement, how they have to abide by the EU rules without having any say in them. As the article also reports, the Swiss have voted in a referendum for the ability to impose their own quotas on immigration into their country from the EU zone, so if we voted to leave, other member states might decide to follow and a domino effect might ensue. It seems a good idea that should we vote to leave, Norway and Switzerland should be among the first countries that we agree increased trading agreements with. The freedom of movement between member states of the EU might well be linked to free trade agreements, but if we voted to leave the EU, we would then renegotiate our trade agreements with them on mutually acceptable terms. As the fifth biggest economy in the World, we are quite a different entity to Norway and Switzerland and with immigration being perhaps the major issue in the referendum, we are hardly going to accept the free movement of peoples from the EU to the UK on the EU's terms. The object of leaving is to regain control over our borders and to make our own rules regarding who we were prepared to allow in and what access they then had to benefits, healthcare, etc.

"There are" surely

It's debatable as to whether Japanese is the best foreign language, compared to Portuguese, Dutch or Italian. Personally I think Italian is the best of those three.

A simple acceptance of my answer would have sufficed, without having to restate it. Cheers.

Have I ever claimed that we were a bigger club than Spurs? I don't think so. Could we ever finish ahead on them in the PL? Yes, Leicester show that is feasible under the right circumstances. At the start of the season, anybody who claimed that Leicester would be top of the division at this stage would have been taken away by men in white coats. Scorn would also have been poured on anybody on here who predicted that at this stage we would be above Chelsea and Liverpool and just one point behind Van Gaal's United.

I don't see any reason to upgrade the adjective "creditable". Spurs have been knocking on the door of the top four for some time and in this exceptional season, Chelsea and Man United have performed poorly, allowing Spurs to take those clubs' places, plus traditional top four club Liverpool are a shadow of their former selves, even though they also managed second place a couple of seasons ago. The club worthy of the very highest praise is Leicester, who have punched far above their weight. I don't disagree that Pochettino was a good manager for us, nor that he has been a good manager for Spurs. As for his future success, that depends on several factors, many of which have been mentioned. My opinion is that if he gets offers from the really big clubs, he will weigh up the possibility that next season is going to be much harder to achieve similar success, as the top clubs that stuttered this season will probably get their acts together. For him it will be a twist or stick situation. Stay and achieve success at an equal level and his stock will rise further. But if improvements to the other top sides mean that they finish outside the top four, then his reputation will take a knock.

Win it this season and it's a creditable performance. Stay and finish outside of the top four next season because United & Chelsea get their acts together with new top managers, as well as the possibility that Klopp gets Liverpool performing and Guardiola gets City firing on all cylinders and Poch's performance this season is seen as a blip. If winning the PL gets him into the frame to manage a bigger club, (of which there are several), that is the sort of career advancement that Spurs will have served as a stepping stone towards. He has already proven that loyalty doesn't count for much against ambition.

Spurs are apparently keen to sign him up for a longer contract. His first step will be to delay it, saying that there is not any hurry. In the meantime, he will wait to see whether there is indeed interest in him from Chelsea and United. As you say, he would certainly have his head turned by Bayern and also Barcelona or Real Madrid. Mabbutt cites players like Bale, Modric and Berbatov leaving Spurs for greater things and then suggests that Spurs are now more attractive for their players to stay there rather than going to United, or Chelsea. But Modric and Bale went to Real Madrid and Berbatov went to United in their pomp and those top European teams like Barca, Real, Bayern, Juve and PSG will all be considered to be a step up on Spurs and pay considerably more. Rose-tinted naivety of Mabbutt to think that Spurs could be the top PL club for years to come and that they will keep their top players from leaving.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/14279637.Poch_wouldn_t_walk_out_on_Tottenham_insists_Mabbutt/?ref=rss According to Gary Mabbutt, Pochettino would stay with Spurs, regardless of approaches which might come his way from Chelsea or Manchester United. Mabbutt says that neither team are the forces that they were and that Spurs can do wonderful things in the next few years, so that they will be the team to manage. The probable scenario is that both Chelsea and United will resurrect their fortunes without him, as will Liverpool. City and Arsenal will also be strong, so that there is a strong possibility of Spurs finding next season much more difficult to achieve a top four finish. Mabbutt seems to believe that Spurs can not only stop an ambitious manager leaving for even more glory at the bigger PL clubs, or the big European clubs, but that players like Kane, Alli and Eriksen would also stay there instead of leaving for the dosh and glory elsewhere.

Here is what the refereeing review panel say on Team Talk :- In my opinion, looking at the replays, Clattenburg didn't even have a clear view of it, so how could he have arrived at such a decision anyway? It is suggestive of him either being influenced by the Spurs players, or just being generally incompetent. The way that Sterling turned away from the oncoming ball, it really couldn't even be judged as him adopting an unnatural posture. The decision was utterly bizarre and he should be required to explain his thinking, so that players will know in future how to avoid giving away penalties when he is refereeing them.

If Crap n' Berk wasn't in a clear position to see, why did he award the penalty?

Mason, Moss and Friend are all referees whose standard is closer to Sunday Pub matches than PL football.

Method seems to have disappeared under his stone since his claims that Toby was a far superior centre back than Virgil have been systematically demolished. Ironically it was Spurs fans doing the statistical analysis who provided the ammunition. Although the stats weren't up to date to the present day, there has arguably been quite an improvement in Virgil's abilities since then, so I would be surprised if they showed anything different projected forward. Method has probably gone away to troll another football Club fans' site.

How many of them are Chelsea fans and how many United? And how many of them can even be classified as fans anyway?

A couple of the blog sites posted on News Now, claim that he won it because of the three clean sheets during the last four matches. Had they engaged their brain and researched it properly, they would realise that just because we drew one match doesn't mean that it ended with us conceding a goal.

Bias towards the bigger teams like Palace, Stoke, Watford who are all below us currently and will leapfrog us before the end of the season. Ultimately, crap like this doesn't mean a thing. It has about the same credence as the paper's horoscope page, which has a similar level of guesswork dressed-up as being backed-up with research. As you say, it will be interesting to revisit this at the end of the season.

Whatever the methodology of how the forecast is arrived at, it must be flawed if it believes the sort of outcome that it arrives at with a few of the teams, Saints being a prime example. If it were based on our position a few week back, then they might have a point.